SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
mrbluze writes:
"A modified HTTP protocol is being proposed (the proposal is funded by AT&T) which would allow ISP's to decrypt and re-encrypt traffic as part of day to day functioning in order to save money on bandwidth through caching. The draft document states:
To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to 'register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry specific to signal the usage of HTTP2 to transport "http" URIs resources: h2clr.
The proposal is being criticized by Lauren Weinstein in that it provides a false sense of security to end users who might believe that their communications are actually secure. Can this provide an ISP with an excuse to block or throttle HTTPS traffic?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by calmond on Monday February 24 2014, @07:08PM
In the new HTTP 2.0 proposal, all traffic is going to be https. That means that there is no choice about what will be http and https, since http will not be an option.
This does mean that proxy servers won't work, since they can't see inside the https encrypted packet. While caching isn't as big of a deal with modern equipment, the other common use of a proxy server, filtering, is a big deal. A lot of places like K-12 schools are required by law to filter Internet traffic, which may not be possible with HTTP 2.0.
As for the issues with trusting the likes of AT&T - yeah, right!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dmc on Monday February 24 2014, @07:26PM
Wrong. Filtering for K-12 schools will still be possible without this, it will just need to be done on the client system, instead of on a centralized proxy. If this is such an untenable situation (which it isn't) then the HTTP2 proposers need to rewrite their protocol. This is a tremendously important issue for society, that involves something that could be used to put the equivalent of China's authoritarian (attempt) to control the internet for it's citizens around the necks of *everyone*. The thing that should defeat it, is Network Neutrality, and making it illegal for ISPs to block all non-HTTP2(this proposal) traffic. But since we no longer have NN, we need to fight back against these sorts of things. With NN, then I'd say fine- call it HTTP2, but let the meritocracy label and understand it for what it is- false security. Then everyone who wants real security will stick with HTTP1+https (+improvements in CA infra over what we have today). The nefariousness that I smell coming off of this, is that internet user freedom to ignore such falsely-secure protocols will be taken away from them by ISPs blocking every protocol that doesn't have an NSA backdoor (like this one). Any standards body that blesses this by calling it HTTP2 will have forever lost my trust. Call it something else, that is optional, and fine. The more options the merrier. But take my end to end actually secure encryption out of my cold dead hands. I like my caching and filtering on my endpoint (or interim proxy that _i control_), thank you very much.
(Score: 1) by calmond on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:17PM
I guess I should clarify a bit what I had in mind. Certainly client utilities like Browse Control and others can work on the client in an all HTTPS environment. I've set up transparent proxies in the past though to catch all client machines (tablets, smart phones, etc.), including those that may not have a client application installed. An all HTTPS environment would render transparent proxies, and thus mandatory filtering of all network traffic in places like K-12 schools, impossible. Naturally, a school could simply deny access to devices they don't own, and solve that problem.
Having said all that, please don't misunderstand me, I am completely in favor of an all HTTPS protocol, I'm just pointing out that any such move will have consequences.
(Score: 2) by dmc on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:47AM
I think you just contradicted yourself. You went from impossible, to naturally problem solved in the space of two sentences.
(Score: 1) by calmond on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:02PM
No, not really. I said it is impossible to do this from a centralized server environment for all devices. A compromise would be to not allow all devices, but only the ones under your administrative control. This is not a contradiction, but a compromise.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Monday February 24 2014, @07:37PM
Thank you for making it perfectly obvious that this proposal was NEVER about bandwidth management and was ALWAYS about spying, filtering, and control.
You have, perhaps unwittingly, performed a great service to society by making this clear.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by SMI on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:24PM
Precisely. One of the first things that came to my mind when reading TFS is how much more difficult it's going to be to try to explain encryption to people, now that we'll have to explain that some encryption is real and works, while others (like this) are deliberately designed only to give a sense of false security to people who kind of care about their privacy, so they're interested, but without the technical background and understanding to see this for what it really is.